The URL can be used to link to this page

07/31/2006 - Packet • • AGENDA TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION i • • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing Date: ' 34 —D �v Starting Time: pvt, COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) Mitchell Brown Gretchen Buehner Rex Caffall Patrick Harbison ✓ Kathy Meads ✓ Judy Munro (Vice-President) David Walsh ✓ Jeremy Vermilyea (alternate) STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee Gary Pagenstecher ■ Barbara Shields Cheryl Caines Denver Igarta Emily Eng Duane Roberts Kim McMillan Beth St. Amand Gus Duenas Phil Nachbar Sean Farrelly r ! • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 31,2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Munro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Red Rock Creek Conference Room,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice-President Munro; Commissioners Brown, Buehner, and Meads. Also present was Jeremy Vermilyea, Commission alternate. Commissioners Absent: President Inman, Commissioners Caffall,Harbison, and Walsh Staff Present: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager, Denver Igarta, Associate Planner;Jerree Lewis,Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Jeremy Vermilyea will be appointed as a Planning Commissioner at the August 8th City Council meeting to fill Teddi Duling's unexpired term. Commissioner Meads said the Park and Recreation Advisory Board have not met since the last Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Buehner advised that the Planned Development Code Review Committee has reported to Council on the proposed ordinances. Council was pleased with the work and gave the approval to begin the public hearing process. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES There was not a quorum present,so the minutes could not be approved. 5. GOAL 5 Associate Planner Denver Igarta gave a PowerPoint presentation on Goal 5 Habitat Protection (Exhibit A). He advised that the Washington County Basin Partners have been developing a program to address fish and wild protection. Tonight will be a discussion about habitat PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 31,2006—Page 1 • • protection. Goal 5 is a statewide planning goal. This project involves 2 resources — wildlife and the riparian corridor. The Commissioners were asked for their personal impressions of wildlife in their neighborhoods: Commissioner Buehner thinks of the western side of the City, i.e., the Summer Lake area and Summer Creek There is a lot of energy and interest by homeowners in that area to restore the wetlands along the creek and lake. She doesn't see Fanno Creek on a regular basis. Commissioner Meads lives in the NE section of the City. She doesn't have access to a creek; she mainly sees commercial areas,density, and traffic. There's not much natural area in her part of the City that can be accessed and appreciated. There is no bus service and no sidewalks. She sees a lack of balance. Commissioner Brown said his sense of place is connected to Fanno Creek and downtown Tigard. He said it is also becoming defined by the amount of new construction on McDonald Street and Hall Blvd. He believes natural areas are diminishing. Commissioner Buehner said that as she looks from the NE side of Bull Mountain, she sees trees and a view of Mt. Hood. There won't be anymore development around her. She would like the City to get the land in the Hillshire subdivision that was dedicated for parks. Commissioner Munro lives in the Summer Lake area. She crosses Fanno Creek every day and sees nutria. She is surrounded by natural features, although there is a concrete bridge over the creek Jeremy Vermilyea sees Tigard as a town of extremes. Hi s property backs up to approximately 6 acres of forest. They see deer and there is a nearby creek They go to Summer Lake regularly and take their dog to the dog park The other extreme is the 99W Corridor and the commercial part of Tigard. There is also the industrial part along the freeway. He does not think there's a lot of integration between the 3 areas. Tigard could use a little more balance. Igarta advised that habitat areas include stream corridors, wetlands/riparian areas, and upland habitat (trees). Threats to habitat include insensitive development, loss of vegetation, contaminated runoff,and altered hydrology. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan includes an overall purpose statement (to protect resource lands from urban development encroachment and retain natural resources) and other natural resource policies to protect the habitat. Metro and the Tualatin Basin Partners have developed a policy to conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable streamside corridor system. There are no specific goals in the Tigard Comprehensive Plan that talk about protection or restoration of environmental resources,only policies. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 31,2006—Page 2 • • The Commissioners were asked to give their own definitions of conservation, protection and restoration. The following responses were given: Conservation: Don't let land be used to begin with; do not bring change; do not alter, more radical choice- don't let people build Protection: If land is used, it's done in a prudent and sensitive manner, protection is more subjective;protection allows you to "massage" policy Restoration: Fix it; restore land back to its natural state; go back and recreate or come up with a complementary feature;benchmarks are difficult Commissioner Buehner referred to the Maplecrest development that the Planning Commission approved last year. The developer put in fewer houses, did some restoration in the wetland area, did some mitigation by adding culverts,had a nature path, and put a bridge over the creek. All mitigation was done on site. The Planning Commission discussed the difficulties of establishing benchmarks for restoration and to what extent mitigation should be allowed off-site, if at all. Commissioner Buehner would like to see some kind of sliding scale for development on steep slopes. Staff advised that there was a change in the Goal 5 program approach with Measure 37. The focus shifted away from regulatory restrictions on development and concentrated more on keeping existing regulations and encouragement of a more voluntary incentive approach. The Basin Partners have adopted a map to include the upland area (hilly steep areas with trees and forests) which goes outside of the riparian area. Staff reviewed the limitation map with the Commission and discussed the 3 levels of development limitations. Lightly limit applies to upland areas; moderately limit applies to the riparian areas; and strictly limit applies to the vegetated corridor (streams, floodplains, natural drainageways, wetlands). The Basin program approach is primarily focused on flexibility in the Development Code and habitat-friendly development. Another significant protection that the City has in place is Safeharbor, which follows major streams in Tigard and provides Goal 5 protection. For outside stream areas,the City has a tree removal ordinance in place. Commissioner Buehner noted that there has been a working relationship between CWS and the City. She is concerned because CWS is putting together a large fee increase; however, none of the increase will go to the City. This will put more of a burden on the City for restoration activities. Staff advised that there are not any proposed new development restrictions with this program. The Basin is focusing on habitat-friendly development techniques which reduce the impact on PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 31,2006—Page 3 • • surrounding habitat areas. One way is to reduce the development footprint. The Commission was shown examples of some of the techniques. Staff advised that the Tualatin Basin Partners finalized their program last spring and are waiting for Metro to adopt it. In the meantime, the Partners are still required to meet and implement some habitat-friendly development practices as code amendments. Tigard's Development Code has several existing regulations that substantially meet about half of the recommendations made by the Basin Partners. Code amendments would be required for modifications/ allowances in 4 categories (lot dimensions, density/buildable area, landscaping, and reduced pavement). Examples were given of possible code amendments. Staff noted that some of the flexibility in development review is applied to the vegetative corridor which is already protected. The habitat areas outside the vegetative corridor have no protections in place. This may be a good opportunity to include code amendments that would provide protections to those areas outside of the vegetative corridor. Commissioner Buehner suggested having standard subdivisions come to the Planning Commission and use the same provisions as planned developments. Metro requires that jurisdictions make their code amendments within a year of the Basin Partners' program being accepted by Metro. If we would like to include protection to areas outside the vegetative corridor,it would require map adoption and text change. Igarta discussed the gap analysis for on-site density transfer/lot size averaging. The Basin Partners recommend allowing 100% of development to be transferred from habitat areas to the remainder of the site; Tigard allows 25% of the density to be transferred. Igarta advised that the City is obligated to consider Basin recommendations and come up with valid findings why we can't incorporate them. If we do this,we essentially meet the Basin's requirements. If the City wants to give incentives (e.g., density transfers, smaller lot sizes, narrower streets, setbacks), Commissioner Buehner suggested we provide developers with the maximum amount of flexibility through the Planned Development process. Igarta advised that Metro requires us to complete code amendments and be in compliance with Metro's Title 13 program by end of this year. This deadline can be extended if necessary. There is also a question as to when the State will acknowledge Metro's program. In the meantime,staff will be working on two types of amendments — housekeeping amendments and others that are more complex. Staff will come back to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Commissioner Buehner suggested that staff meet with the new Commissioners separately to bring them up to speed on the PD code and Goal 5 issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 31,2006—Page 4 • • 6. OTHER BUSINESS Barbara Shields announced that she was leaving the City;effective August 4th. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. A Jerree • ,Planning Co • sion Secretary A r: Vice-President Judy Munro PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—July 31,2006—Page 5 HABITAT PROTECTION '77171 *7177" Why Protect Habitat Areas? Quality of rife: A P4' ..,': 1: ti. : a Access to nature : ! :R a Healthy fish and wildlife •i ., •..°•• ` '. • Risk of natural hazards Y ..i r ` • Future generations t • Lure growth 1. _ • E Natural vs. built . • environment Makes Tigard...Tigard! • Contributes to the "sense of place" e.g.Fanno Cm& ....a I • . . . * - ...i.: .. . .... . • IIE ......,V ......li •..,,,A1,•.....'4•''.■•:.!".5.i.11......', .. .. . *-1....s .- *4 P.:r.k....• .1..i.i. • .440,.....:..,.....? !.,;,.. ••.•• ....1.1Z.”.i...'''.•'-'.'' ....,;•'..... i. :0.% ;•0, il ......,:2A4 ., ...----.,..5;.,...:,,,,....r.l.p.••. ..... .• . :,..y. .,0•4:13';':•'....1:•,••'-....., :. ''' •,....::•,,...,..4.,:.::,.:: .• . •;.,.../tg. '..-7 ,I• , . . ... •4::,•• 4.4.,,,....,,,„: Ck• ':".-',:. .'<•'''-'.7...'''.•••;;.••te.'••.....:••,..-....... ... .C.:.. •• M :!' • ,:,'.'414,.,'.:....e....'.: 0:::::::: ...F: ::.1.. CD .::ot... ......:04 4 .. : 1 ......1..... ille . :.::„.:.. .. . . at ....., - . • :.:-...... .I........ ,.,..: A .....• 4• ..., cio ....i."1::.:::::7,ii„:•••••.,•,; :,..........„ ..,:::.0 . Go •• ••%.... .:..., •......,,„ • 77 a.. 024.4■11tieTi''..'ic....:::::•:.;■■■••■•••••••2**** ."..1.1' •• ...L.. ••••••• .e.,, ...... *le - ..f:::.....•......: • ., ...,:.N '" .?. ' ‘::,-,i.-Ity...4.7. :. ,?.:•.:...:,.• . ,, ....Ill:I ell ..67••;.•.?;••: •”,0 ..' .1:........... •,•1'.i..`'.44'•:.:E.'71f:::::.'.!..:!....•I. .•.....• 121) .. Ott 4:•••• ;. . .'•V 1:::':;•:::::::.:; •0•10 .. .'"&,..e .:,'"'. •''.1.(.■ •;',...t.!41 'I:" .....41..t. '.. fii 6 .. ,.„.:. , . ....„ill :::.:::.:::::::::: ,,,,... : • . :v. ago: .....a... el ...-.•,,..•,... ,.,..,_.' 4Nri 4110 : "...,,,,:,■:t.; n':....44":''''''''' ;.....-...''' .r.::: '. ',.1,,Iii..:.f. ill •••• ,••'Iri:-•'.;:".-t--iti•111. •. .: .— • ' 1 ••••., .4....it :: ...... •Li 400 ad ::-J-4-: •.:::•• 4,-,....2...r.‘ •.: VT 1%,.. !Cr:. ..... .. :4 I. ... 0„.1: 0: .....;::.. -,..,,...:7 '''.;f.-.•,, -••,.. -- • CIO . -..3, :.;;.... .: • i .. • •ism • • . .. " iil. , .6:r. 01.%'.. -'•••4, 1..(11 • • ... ... .. IP,.I! iic71i:. . '''''.1""-.. •:.A'., 4":„..! ! . 141 ■ .. • :•;•• .15 11111C' IN ... • w ............111::: *-• .......• E c..... : . 6 .,:::4:,..r..;..-...,... , ,,,.....,...:,,,,:, ......... .--. .. .. .11 ... . — ,„:„.„.,..:....:• ..::.:.". :::.::::.:...:::::::.:.:.,• : .. , .••••• ce: ....;.4...........,....;.. . ;cs. . ••:,.:. - ",.... :., 4. 4.11 =II rue 111;.: il.:"n. :.:.•'1:::::::".:'..- .:;:4. '-'::::::•:::::::•• • •::. • ql CI) 1A111 ,.;::: ;::...:.i'.:-...^:..: • IP ..f......*: .....1.4 MEM 1.6 • 2 h ''e - • . • •:::::Anigigtil .. I .I... ,••1•1! CIO ....:•••• CI • ,...:••• 1.1 • . '•••,•#.1441 IN: . • •.... • . • •••••..44.,..5...;,.1•!..' I no .. ,.2. , • so .", ....., ....:••• ';!.:•• •;:r..;.4 • Cise . 'w‘ii — .-. .44'.....141rillivailm.•:•.::!. '1":".::::. •. — .: .. ....-.. .1111.1! ..I. . gi,:i : . . ,. .. -i., meilii;1,.. . ..,15.:004,1•4:..,"'i•••:.:.::.:..... I., 1 . i • ':::g4M11110:'',... ..,....v.........41...............2 .**".;,;.: .—,.,...• .........1:7' .a• .....L4,..........?,•••,1,..: . . ._............:::::71,.... • • ::. ••••.„,..,.::::- • ....1. •. • . .•� ra • rte Encr c g : _ >aii .: +or x At!'. R ? 4: .ap fi �SR ,' .. • `4"lE ti .. a�rl. EMI► ... .� y:. � • t4 E. Natural Resource Policies • 1 • Overall Purpose i ::;' ''°i •Protect resource lands from urban deveiopmen '',.::! 0 1 r encroachment r •Retain natural resources which contribute to livability • • Natural Features Policies(3.4.1 &3.4.2) Ail ■Areas of Significant Environmental Concern: includes areas valued for their fragile character as habitats 1. w Protect fish and wildlife habitat along stream corridors... , • Conserve, protect and restore a continuous WI ecologically viable streamside corridor system... and with their ltoo dplains in a manner that is integrated with the surrounds • urban landsca•-. Environmental Definitions ,1;11::%11:111 zifj$ r -* Conservation: r, 1. Manage in a manner th oids wasteful ,1;:•N: (OR DSL DLCD) Protection: Limit or prohibit uses that * id with a s'*nifi (Dst.ot.cb) Restoration: The manipulation of the physical cs of a site with the goal of returning r. Basin Pr i sroacn :Lit: • ExIsti •• rag, ji Approach Ftex,bitil Class Habitat -tent(LED: / t. Technics ance Tat _tion L- <.4 41J C a r. :•:' INISida hie Ub81731 Program .11:••::••:•• •• .••; •• f••• "•:*:! • '••• VeCE.:t.ate 0(.11.1-idCr 1!•1 Sln,:x I s. I • . .• Upland d RR:• ;RR pa C R [Mt an Ciass if :••• • . . :•• • • • • • • • • •• • •••••• .................. . Habitat-friendly Devel Reduce the detrimental impact r;I: on surrounding habitat areas .R.1•4: • Remove barriers to th F• _ I: •'''i • implementation of habitat-friendly ..• . (low impact) development practices • • Develop guidelines (code provisions) to encourage habitat- —111100111–iiiii friend! deveio•ment •ractices :nin MOE i .,,... ..,k.1 v ,) ;";, :t..* •. -"''4hi....,rk..N.9 n •!•• • U ...; 44'6....;;....•;:•...t,';i?'.0:::'ti.:7 $.... i 96...„,0 4 _ 4;Piik :1I ,.• .... •.7,:,..,....,.:..,4..;,.. :.,..• :....,,,,,,:,,,e, loot •PPM 4'".\'7'c',2114.,,;•=.'• `„'.- '. .:..r•5!"..a 4 • A 11 I i -; '....''....•"-- 1 !t,•••• s . , , , • •••i 'SW ...... 0 . ,:. — •, .T:., Ict:*,...,::" :,,, . ... .. •4.,•••1•: ...,_ : :e.g.)/.--1.1•11.! ri ,••••• :........ = .7 4.:? P+.i4.1,,,,..'.* .... , *I'l.'. '14.:1444414:10.'.. 4.....;•••. © "...Liz i'.44 F' ,.. ...••.-..•....1 . • ...J... - - ,::::• *Wm • .... • .. • . . .i,,,...,. .:44.,:..:::.•:r...§:* •••; 4::s. .4 Oft- . • ''' •. .. '•••'' •'. 1.'.'•;.*:.•••:•:.••••••.'.Z.:3 ' .MY:4'F°.''• t.' MINI MIMI P h. ••'•••.' -• ••••••"riki•kl4X.j.;,4;..••: . •=• •., = • •. .• •,., -t• lit 4k its ...•''.._•.f.••• 47.:1'..t::..i..J11.,:":-...'...1.,..". .7:.::.-.... .. ' Ii: , rdiN....:. ._.:„,:, ••.:• A...:10.47p:.. ..... = 3 • - :'•• * •• "I::: • .. • —..,• et' . `X.. .,50111911r.1 CC 04 ilito; IN .it..ki.: ....! '1 '..".114.`s..- ti"".■!'.,.., •• SO ir .... — et V.114.. ..:.10 ,. ..' • i-T:' • :. :.... :: = ..c t3AC VD ,••i•••:.•;....":... .• •ail ? ii.;;;::1!`:". 4.(1::!.. :Ysi .K4.:7, , > to !'.,•::•: .NM CI) . • >..• El* •.4••:.:k...i.; '.2g--.'.:•; ....A;...4•• •Sigiu• ... .3P :: .:.al.E.1:!•••••;:,:,.•.• d, • .V)••••tl..• Cift .41J X %a tt t •.. . .. .,,h • 101+ .,:..x. „. 44 . • .4.:%:::.... ,0:6•41.2.'.:::.••,..y,-....- •:-...-!.....,;:,Iii.•::::- . - ••,` •••;:.:.::::.....::.. A 0 ....." •••• Iv co) • • :•'...v•ii :••-• .. : ilij .:: .4.',11:o. •um 4w 4IT ••• ,,,,,• :. _4.40..tS? •. . ES;ci•...., I.: '40 1, 'a ..«..• •,... .., • •Mil 2 ''' Caf) 2:I 'A ..• ...:'- .:•:•::::41::.. - •.'''.-- •ti.:** •-,,......„„.. . • •••;•;:rdir.....-• •••• -...:;„. ...„. .„ . ...1...4„..„°......tam..........::::...„...c......Y.-•...4:::-.. :•• .... ., ... • • • ••• :.. .• .. . . . '°•':-.°:: ":"*".,177:"*".." ■ 1..• 7::••••r k k'.... tig ,.4 ::4•71..Sil.' Z O'..ilk i. ..E. ' ].... ;.11•••....L.'' ....• 4:..eriP OA :•:.•• .:' • • •..filiii:4....14 li . ,.... .., roltr• 111... ,4.,- ........• .. :::„.iliAl . = ',f:::",,,:'.:;:....• . ;::.. ..4i, •••,;.* L...il'A' •',. /:''' ' v cr • •Tq;:.:,....... pi . ••• . . .......„..,;,,........,.. •••... ••. ,, .. mpliminim •,..• . ....4,•• :-..:: ....•:• ••••::. ,. 4L Ail = ... :• L11 ••••• . h 4 •. ..4,1.,•-:. : ,,. „ ..,..•••„„7:..:....,..* - • ,..... ...... : —• ........„:00........,-.4,,,,, Hi to - • - ' -,::. •••••':.:A.. 3 a , '..,2 •••• ....•• ..... ••,..... '.,...t 1 1.. . . ,,.,: ..11... = I Vr.4,..r.:z•V / •4•10 It 8 T...„..., .„ ........:: :::. ........: ..........., !.............. .,...v ..1',•• If--77-fi 11 i .....• .. •..............:::::::::. / . MIMI! .4 s 1 ., ".'...,::•... T..: •••..:..:• 1 *NM • = • .:14,. ••:.: -: •••*, rii. . Ci5 0,.. :,—.....••••:p.--,...::v.„„.-;.::::::::::-......4.4•••• ••••••••1:7-...0 1' 1 wi• 4 , ,, i CD • .: . .. . ..• ••:: •i:;•,.4 • -1•... •4- :::.: :1: • 0 •• . 7:7,:•••••-::::„...1.....:•••••••••---.................--:•:- • •1:::::::::.:: ::.ci : C. c4 ' st••••: .:::!:::::::::IV Ifk.:‘,,,..:•::7017-4.11 •.:::: ..;. :::,y..z:!......[::: : . • . tl) ••., .......,/°—.4:::1, ni. ......L.:::.1:7„. w ::. ::::::.:11:::!:::•/• i:tiz:;! .-:•. . • ••.‘ :.:.• „... 410 :.,..•e: • 4.: ., •,..• = _,... ... . „„.:......1::::". .i . . cf) 0 Jo...t14:401:H.,f,'di.m.11,07- —• 1..:... . .... ••• .- CIS : - •,.....3.'::r . '.: ' .•. • • _ .... 40 *a •••••••••••-i ;,',Freii;4•:': ti,' ; 111/ ......1..:::: •Poll II. ., •••••.....: ::::,..:1; •Ki" .::".• • :i• :.I.: •::••.•••• :...s.,::::: ,..it.::: I' ....A ,• • go v 1 cl . ....c ,...., •• •.....::.:. ,,,.....4,i,::.,:..7. . .. .. „,..,•:•, • (i) g I : ...:::.... ....):: -:::':;.,..i.''',.:"'::.:::: .. . '.'.-.: .. • 1 44 ....i... •. • Am,.• (..1,.. 1.1 '.......:7'.'"':......:::s: ...:"4;:r:.•:,......" 47.1*.:.41..:. :. • ..::::::VaNt.,!* • •••• •• 4.....'•••••!.i...'• • • ..'42.....f.::!....1..L.,:, 11 ,—......—... ......;.....L4........, ................ . . •• ....• :--;.:..".".•••••••'•5:::::' .....rol..„,:te..............Lf...;,. —:' •: • . •,:j.' • • .:•••••• -• : •" Tigard Code Review Review existing regulations for consistency with "habitat-friendly development recommendations for the Tualatin Basin. ,•••*: L4• Summary of Findings L # • 11 recommendations were determined to be 7 V substantially met by existing regulations r:). • • • Lot Coverage Flexibility • Use of Native Plants •:• •• • • Parking Ratios • Tree Canopy Preservatio :•• :• • • • • Shared Driveways& Parking • Minimum Lot Size Reduction • Parking Stall Dimensions • Maximize Street Tree Coverage • Parking Lot Landscaping • Use Stormwater Management • Location of Landscaping Facilities :1.0 Tigard Code Revie Summary of Findings(cont.) • Amendments to local ordinances would be required for the following 11 proposed methods: • lot area • Adjust • V . • •Reduce road ".".•,;:11:•• (width,depth minimum facilities widths for &frontage) density count as habitat areas& required I •Adjust • Allow onsite stream kings maximum density landscaping I•Reduced building height transfer • Promote soil I sidewalk width I •Adjust.. • Modify amendment ify net •Anew pervibus minimum buildable area paving setback I . Code Amendment: Example 1 Lot Dimension Adjustments Sensitive Lands- 18.775.100 (Adjustments) • Up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional s ...within or adjacent to the vegetated could Lot area(width&dept ossi• e o•e ang Extend area eligibl to include si•nifica Code a - • - t: Example Street & Sidewalk Width Adjustme Street Improvement Standards - 18.810.030.A. • May approve adjustment to standards...if compliance with standards will result in an adverse ;'br:..; impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep '4' ;,: slope, or existing mature trees. ? 9: f • Minimum widths by street type are shown on Table 18.810.1 Possible Code Change ■ Add habitat areas to list of natural features. al Policy Consideration Innovative Design • Flexible Lot Dimensions and Existing Neighborhood Character • Reduce Impervious Surface I Runoff Ati Street& Parking Design Standards Accommodating Growth • Buildable Land and Habitat Protect• Development Review • Streamlined Permit Process and Design Review t' • Coordinate "habitat friendly" code amendments with the City's Comprehensive Plan update process • Define plan of action for amending the Community Development Code • Recommend code amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council • Adopt"habitat-friendly" code amendments • • /11, • MEMORANDUM T I GARD TO: Planning Commission of' 1t4 >r FROM: Denver Igarta, Associate Planner ; cot` RE: July 17, 2006 Meeting k�• 1 �wl�� 1A0 e- • DATE: July 7, 2006 Y� /a3k At the July 17th Planning Commission meeting, a brief update will be given on the City's efforts to implement the Tualatin Basin Habitat Protection Program in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 5 and Metro Title 13 "Nature in Neighborhoods". The Tualatin Basin Partners for Natural Places is an affiance of local governments in Washington County (including the City of Tigard) which has collaborated for since 2002 to protect the Basin's natural resources. Most recently, the Basin Partners formulated a strategy to encourage the use of habitat friendly development practices, which cover a broad range of development techniques that reduce the detrimental impact on fish and wildlife habitat relative to traditional development practices. Two issue papers were prepared by the Basin Partners recommending development code amendments to reduce the environmental impacts of new development and remove barriers to their utilization. Subsequently, City staff conducted a gap analysis to evaluate the adequacy of existing City of Tigard regulations to meet the recommendations outlined by the Basin. The attached gap analysis report summarizes the findings from the City of Tigard code audit. Of the "code concepts" recommended by the Basin Partners, eleven were determined to be substantially met by existing City of Tigard regulations. The remaining ten recommendations would require some amendments to the local development code to fully meet the Basin's habitat friendly guidelines. Based on the gap analysis, a number of outstanding issues were identified which must be resolved before all the Basin recommendations can be implemented. Since the City of Tigard is currently engaged in a process to significantly update its Comprehensive Plan, the code amendments required to implement the Basin's Habitat Protection Program will be integrated into the comprehensive planning process. Policies developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan update will instruct the City's implementation of the Basin's habitat protection program and will address the outstanding issues identified by the gap analysis. Attachment 1: City of Tigard Gap Analysis Attachment 2:PowerPoint Presentation Slides I:\LRPLN\Denver\Goa15\Council-PC\Planning Commission\7 17 06 PC memo.doc • • • ATTACHMENT 1 ,at©ea,. � TUALATIN BASIN GOAL 5 PROGRAM n_4100 CITY OF TIGARD GAP ANALYSIS %aura%a¢ TIGARD INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes the findings of a recent review of existing City of Tigard regulations relative to implementation recommendations presented by the Tualatin Basin to encourage habitat friendly development practices. The City of Tigard is currently engaged in a process to significantly update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Due to the anticipated revisions to the policies and content of the current Plan, this gap analysis did not examine the Comp Plan in detail as it relates to the recommendation contained in Issue Paper #2 of the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Program Implementation Report. The structure of this report follows the order presented in the table of recommended approaches and methods presented in Issue Paper #2. As part of the gap analysis, a matrix was created to present a side-by-side comparison of Tualatin Basin recommendations with City of Tigard regulations and to document the findings in a condensed format,please refer to Appendix A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Of the "code concepts" recommended by the Tualatin Basin, two of the habitat friendly methods are repeated in two separate sections and six other methods were not accompanied by specific code guidelines for local jurisdictions to incorporate into their land development ordinances. Of the remaining 22 Basin recommendations, eleven were determined to be substantially met by existing City of Tigard regulations. In order to fully meet Tualatin Basin guidelines, some amendments to the local code would be required for eleven of the proposed habitat friendly development methods. In order to meet eight of the Basin recommendations, the City would need to adopt Habitat Benefit Areas map, in particular the recommendations related to onsite density transfer, lot dimension standards, building height, setbacks, sidewalk width, net buildable area, minimum density and minimizing paving (refer to Table 1). In addition, seven recommendations would require additional flexibility within the development code, four recommendations would require removal of barriers in existing regulations, and two methods would require additional language to encourage their use. Table 1. Tualatin Basin Recommendations Requiring Tigard Code Amendments Basin Recommendation Adopt More Code Remove Language to Habitat Map Flexibility Code Barrier Encourage Use Onsite Density Transfer 3C X Setback Flexibility 3C 3C Building Height Flexibility 3C Lot Dimensional Standards Reduced Sidewalk Width X X Net Buildable Area 3C X Permit Stream Enhancement Outright 3C 3C Allow Pervious Paving Materials 3C 34 Encourage Soil Amendments Reduce Minimum Density X X Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas 3 X I:ILRPLN\DenverGoal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goat5_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF TIGARD GAP ANALYSIS I. Planning & Development Recommendations A. Land Division 1 On-Site Density Transfer / Lot Size Averaging Tualatin Basin Recommendation At a minimum, all jurisdictions should consider allowing all development potential to be transferred from a qualified Habitat Benefit Area (HBA) to the remainder of the development site; provided that the transferred density shall not more than double the density allowed on the buildable portion of the site. For development sites with split zoning, transfers should be permitted across zoning districts. This transfer would not apply to those areas already protected by existing natural resource regulations (e.g., DSL/COE, CWS). Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.715.030—Residential Density Transfer The units per acre calculated by subtracting sensitive land areas from the gross acres may be transferred to the remaining buildable land areas subject to the following limitations: The number of units which can be transferred is limited to the number of units which would have been allowed on 25 percent of the unbuildable area if not for these regulations; and the total number of units per site does not exceed 125% of the maximum number of units per gross acre permitted for the applicable comprehensive plan designation. Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.2 - To retain existing trees over 12" in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.430.020.D; 18.715.020; 18.775.110 Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation The Tualatin Basin recommends allowing all (or 100% of) development potential to be transferred from habitat areas to the remainder of the site, while the existing Tigard regulations only allow 25% of the density to be transferred. Where the Basin standard would allow for up to 200% of the density that would have been allowed on the remaining ; Tigard regulations allow up to 125% of the entire sites maximum'density. Based on the comparison of the City's current standards with the Basin recommendation, it was determined that the regulations fail to meet the guidelines for local jurisdictions. 2 Lot Dimensional Standards Tualatin Basin Recommendation Lot dimensional standards — Jurisdictions should consider allowing lot dimensional standards (width, depth, and frontage) to be reduced by up to 40%. I:ILRPLNIDenver\Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goal5_Report.doc • ATTACHMENT 1 Tigard Community Development Code — Relevant Code Section: 18.7 7 5.10 0 May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area... to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. Type II Procedure. Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.3 — To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% of that required by the underlying zone. Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.360.080.A. 1; 18.620.030.2; 1 8.730.030 Current Gap: Almost Meet Recommendation The Tualatin Basin recommends allowing up to 40% reduction to lot dimensional standard, while the existing Tigard regulations allows up to 50% adjustment to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat,water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. If the Tualatin Basin program maps are adopted and this provision is applied to habitat benefit areas, the existing standard would exceed the Basin recommendation. B. Site Design 1 Increased Flexibility for Setbacks Tualatin Basin Recommendation Encouraging protection of Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA) may require flexibility in terms of setbacks. Except for lot lines adjacent to property zoned single-family residential, jurisdictions should consider allowing the minimum building setback established by the base zone to be reduced to any distance between the base zone minimum and zero, unless this reduction conflicts with applicable fire or life safety requirements. Codes should also allow this level of flexibility for setbacks that are internal to new single family residential developments. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.7 7 5.10 0 May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area...to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. Type II Procedure. Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.360.080.A.1; 18.620.030.2; 18.730.030 Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation The Basin recommends that jurisdictions should consider allowing the minimum building setback established by the base zone to be reduced to any distance between the base zone minimum and zero (except for lot lines adjacent to property zoned single- family residential). The Tigard Development Code currently allows up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standards, including setback, within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area. 1:1LRPLNIDenverAGoal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices1GoaI5_Report.doc • ATTACHMENT 1 The existing City of Tigard regulations fail to meet the recommended standard by only allowing up to 50% adjustment for multifamily residential, commercial, industrial and mixed use lots. Also, inventoried habitat benefit areas must be added to the setback adjustment criteria in order to meet the Basin recommendation. 2 Increased Flexibility for Lot Coverage Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should consider allowing lot coverage to be increased up to 80%, provided the square footage of the additional coverage doesn't exceed the total square footage of the Habitat Benefit Area (HBA). Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.510.2 & 18.520.2 Maximum lot coverage for commercial development ranges from 80% to 90%; light and heavy industrial is 85%; and residential maximum coverage is 80%. Maximum site coverage for industrial park districts is 75% but may be up to 80% if defined requirements are satisfied. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation All relevant Tigard zoning classifications allow lot coverage to be increased up to 80% or greater, thus meeting the Basin's recommended flexibility for lot coverage. 3 Increased Flexibility for Building Height Tualatin Basin Recommendation Except for areas within 40 feet of property zoned single-family residential, jurisdictions should consider allowing an increase in the maximum building height established by the base zone of up to 12 feet, unless this increase conflicts with applicable fire or life safety requirements. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.775.100 May approve up to 50% adjustment to any dimensional standard (setback height, or lot area) within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor area...to reduce adverse impacts on wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and the potential for slope of flood hazards. This provision provides for adjustments of 15 feet or greater for residential, commercial and industrial buildings. Type II Procedure. Current Gap: Almost Meets Recommendation While the Tigard Development Code allows up to 50% adjustment, this flexibility is only applicable to areas within or adjacent to the vegetated corridor. If the Tualatin Basin program maps are adopted and this provision is applied to habitat benefit areas, the existing standard would exceed the Basin recommendation. C. Parking Design 1 Reduced Parking Ratios Tualatin Basin Recommendation For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider reducing parking ratios for non-residential development by up to 10%. I:ILRPLN1Denver\Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goa15_Report.doc • ATTACHMENT 1 Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.4 For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan for commercial, industrial or civic uses, a 1% reduction in the amount of required parking may be granted. No more than a 20% reduction in the required amount of parking may be granted for any one development. Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.765.070.F Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code allows for up to 20% reduction in required parking for commercial, industrial or civic uses, thus exceeding the 10% recommended by the Tualatin Basin. 2 Shared Driveways & Parking Areas Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should review their codes to confirm that they encourage the use of shared parking and on-street parking credits as a means of reducing the amount of required on- site parking. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.705.030 C; 18.765.030.0 Owners may agree to utilize same access and egress... Owners of 2 or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces... Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.360.080.B Current Gap; Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code was reviewed, and two sections (18.705.030 C; 18.765.030.C) were identified that address the issue of joint access, egress, parking and loading areas. Existing regulation meet the Basin's recommendation. 3 Flexibility in Parking Lot Landscaping/Additional Parking Lot Landscaping Tualatin Basin Recommendation For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas, jurisdictions should consider allowing a reduction of up to 15% of the required landscaping and/or parking lot landscaping square footage; provided that the square footage of landscaping reduction does not exceed the size of the Habitat Benefit Area (HBA). Jurisdictions may also wish to consider allowing some flexibility in their parking lot landscaping standards (the number, dimension, spacing of landscape islands and required trees) to retain individual mature trees in, or adjacent to, the parking area. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.5 For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required 1:1LRPLN1Denver\Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices1Goa15_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 amount of landscaping may be granted. No more than 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. Relevant Code Section: 18.745.050.E.1 (Table 18.745.1 & 18.745.2) Trees shall be planted in landscaped islands in all parking areas, and shall be equally distributed and on the basis of one tree for each seven parking spaces in order to provide a canopy effect; and the minimum dimension of the landscape islands shall be three feet and the landscaping shall be protected from vehicular damage by some form of wheel guard or curb. Tree spacing requirements for parking lot landscaping and screening buffers apply when exiting/abutting uses are residential. For parking lots with 4-50 spaces a 15' minimum and 30' maximum tree spacing is required. If lots have more than 50 spaces a 10' minimum and 20' maximum tree spacing is required. No provisions for adjustment are specified in the Tigard Development Code. Other Relevant Code Section :18.765.040.J Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code allow for a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping, for every 2% of canopy cover preserved, totaling a reduction of up to 20%. This provision applies citywide and allows for 5% more reduction than the flexibility suggested (15% reduction) in the Basin recommendation. 4 Smaller Car Spaces and Stall Dimensions Tualatin Basin Recommendation For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider allowing up to 40% of the required parking spaces to be compact. A general DLCD guideline for parking space dimensions is 7' 6" width and 15' length for 90° compact stall. The suggested standard vehicle parking space is 8' 6" wide by 18' long (or 16' feet long,with not more than a 2' overhang). Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040.N Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows: 50% standard, 50% compact spaces Current minimum 90° compact stall dimensions are 7'6" width and 16' 6" depth, and standard stall dimensions are 8' 6"width and 18' 6" depth. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code allows stalls to be distributed 50% compact and 50% standard spaces. The Tigard standard exceeds the 40% compact distribution suggested by the Basin report. The stall width for 90° compact spaces matches the DLCD guideline (7' 6" width), and the stall length is slightly longer (at 16' 6"). The standard stall width matches the Basin recommendation (at 8' 6") and the stall length is slightly longer (at 18' 6"). The Tigard Development Code standards for parking spaces and stall dimensions meet the Basin's recommendation by allowing a higher percentage of compact spaces, and roughly matching the suggested stall dimensions. 5 Increased Use of Pervious Materials Tualatin Basin Recommendation 1:1LRPLN\Denver\Goal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goal5_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 Consider amendments to remove barriers to, and encourage the use of, pervious paving materials in parking areas and low traffic private streets. For example, many existing codes require parking and street areas to be hard-paved surfaces with asphalt or concrete. Technical design specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method. Additional steps are needed for sites that are not highly suitable in terms of soil permeabilio. Concerns . about slope stability and impacts to adjacent properties should also be addressed. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040 B & H B. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface. H. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface. Relevant Code Section: 18.765.050.D Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material, i.e., pavers asphalt, concrete, or similar material. Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation The Tigard Development Code requires access drives and off-street parking areas to be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces; although, outdoor bicycle parking facilities may be surfaced with pavers. The existing Tigard regulations serve as a barrier to the use of pervious materials on access drives and off-street parking, thus fail to meet the Tualatin Basin recommendations. D. Landscaping/Hardscape Design 1 Locating Landscaping Adjacent to Habitat Areas Tualatin Basin Recommendation For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider allowing a reduction of up to 15% of the required landscaping and/or parking lot landscaping square footage; provided that the square footage of landscaping reduction does not exceed the size of the HBA. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.5 For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% reduction in the required amount of landscaping may be granted. Up to 20% of the required amount of landscaping may be reduced for any one development. Other Relevant Code Sectionx: 18.745.2(Table); 18.745.030.E; 18.745.050; 18.745.060 Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code allows for up to 20% reduction (greater than the 15% recommended) of required landscaping in exchange for preservation of existing tree 1:1LRPLNIDenver\Goal 51Program Implementation1Current Practices\GoaI5_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 canopy (1% reduction for each 2% of canopy). This provision is applied citywide for trees over 12 inches in caliper. Although, this standard doesn't refer directly to habitat areas, it is applied beyond the designated Habitat Benefit Area to the entire city. Therefore, the existing regulations exceed the Basin recommendation. 2 Increased Use of Native Plants Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should consider adding language to encourage the use of native plants and the preservation of existing trees throughout the Basin. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.745.060.C.1.d Where re-vegetation is required...the use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% density bonus (up to 20% reduction), a 1% commercial/industrial/civic use parking reduction or landscaping reduction (up to 20% reduction). To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper , lot size averaging and lot width & depth reductions are allowed. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation Section 18.745.060 of the Tigard Development Code includes language promoting the use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce irrigation and maintenance demands. Section 18.790.040.outlines incentives for the preservation and retention of existing vegetation, including allowing density bonuses, lot size averaging, lot width and depth reduction, commercial/industrial/civic use parking and landscaping requirement reductions. The existing regulations meet the Basin's recommendation. 3 Improved Soil Amendment Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should encourage the use of soil amendments to improve the permeability of soils within landscaped areas. For the purposes of calculating effective impervious area, performance standards and technical specification for soilpermeabiliy should be adopted basin-wide. Tigard Community Development Code • Relevant Code Section: 18.745 Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation There is no reference to soil amendment in the Tigard Development Code. Although there are no statements encouraging soil amendments, there also appear to be no barriers preventing the practice. Existing regulations do not encourage the practice and therefore fail to meet the Basin recommendation. 4 Reduction of non-ADA Sidewalks within a Site Tualatin Basin Recommendation I:ILRPLN\Denver\Goal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goal5_Report.doc • ATTACHMENT 1 For sites with Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA), jurisdictions should consider creating an exception in their pedestrian connectivity standards that allows a reduction in the width of required sidewalks and pedestrian accessway to the minimum necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.810.070 & 18.810.1 (Table) The width required for sidewalks based on street classification including a minimum of 5' for local residential streets, 6' for collectors (residential & industrial zones), 8' for collectors (commercial zones) and arterials (residential & industrial zones), and 10' for arterials (commercial) and the central business district. Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation A sidewalk width of 60 inches (5 feet) is necessary to provide adequate space for two wheelchairs to pass. Sidewalk width reduction is not addressed by current regulations and therefore fail to meet the Basin recommendations. 5 Increased Use of Habitat-Friendly Fencing Tualatin Basin Recommendation There are no guidelines to implement this practice. Tigard Community Development Code There is no mention in code for this practice Current Gap — N/A 6 Preservation of Existing Trees and Maximize Forest Canopy Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should document their existing tree cutting and mitigation standards. Avoiding the cost of mitigation can be a significant incentive for preserving existing trees. However, most tree preservation standards don't make a distinction between native species and non-native species and trees are typically not required to be replaced with native species. Jurisdictions could consider encouraging or requiring that a certain percent of mitigation trees be native species. Alternatively, as an incentive, jurisdictions could allow somewhat smaller specimens to be planted if native species are used (e.g., 2" caliper instead of 2.5"). Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A For each 2% of canopy cover provided by existing trees over 12 inches in caliper that are preserved and incorporated into a development plan, a 1% density bonus (up to 20% reduction), a 1% commercial/industrial/civic use parking reduction or landscaping reduction (up to 20% reduction). To retain existing trees over 12 inches in caliper , lot size averaging and lot width& depth reductions are allowed. Relevant Code Section:18.790.030B Tree Removal Plans must include a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. 1:1LRPLN\DenverGoal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goa15_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 Relevant Code Section: 18.745.040 - Street Trees A. Protection of existing vegetation. All development projects fronting on a public street, private street or a private driveway more than 100 feet in length approved after the adoption of this title shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards in Section 18.745.040.C. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tree Removal chapter (18.790) of the Tigard Development Code includes provisions and incentives for tree preservation and mitigation of removed trees (>12 inches in caliper). The existing regulations meet the recommendation by the Basin. E. Lighting Design 1 Redirected Outdoor Lighting (Reducing Light Spill-Off) Tualatin Basin Recommendation There are no specific guidelines to implement this practice Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.520 Commercial Zoning Districts Section 18.520.060b (Other site development standards) outlines design guidelines for commercial developments, including a requirement that "all lighting fixtures shall incorporate cut-off shields to prevent the spillover of light to adjoining properties". Current Gap — N/A F. Density Reduction for Regionally Significant Habitat 1 Reduce Minimum Density Tualatin Basin Recommendation Local jurisdictions should adopt procedures to allow a waiver of the minimum density requirements. These procedures would be used at the option of the subdivider and should only allow for a reduction in the minimum number of units required to be built based on the amount of area protected. This reduction would not be limited to only Habitat Benefit Areas, but could include all regionally significant habitat on the property that has been protected through a public dedication or restrictive covenant. Procedures should include a standard protocol for notifying Metro by Report to Metro by April 15 of every year of the impact of this provision. Jurisdictions should work with Metro to ensure that"lost" units are allocated back to the Basin. Metro Functional Plan,Title 13 (Nature in Neighborhoods) Section 3.H.2. The amount of reduction in the minimum density requirement that may be approved shall be calculated by subtracting the number of square feet of regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat or significant resource that is permanently protected from the total number of square feet that the city or county otherwise would use to calculate the minimum density requirement for the property. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.500 (Zoning Districts Legislative Notes) 1:1LRPLN1DenverrGoal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\Goa15_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 Section 18.510.040 includes the adoption of minimum densities, which are pegged at 80% of the maximum density allowed in each zone, to insure that land in each zoning district develops at or near the density intended. The adoption of minimum residential densities is mandated by Metro's 2040 Growth Management Functional Plan. Relevant Code Section: 18.500 18.510.040.C. (Density Adjustments) Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or other constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum density required. Relevant Code Section: 18.630.020 E/F (Washington Sq. Regional Center) 18.630.020.E. Adjustments to Density Requirements in the Washington Square Regional Center: The adjustment process provides a mechanism by which the minimum density requirements may be reduced by up to twenty-five percent (25%)... for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code. Type I procedure. Approval criteria: a) Granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified; b)The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area; c) If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d)Any impacts resulting from the adjustment are mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Adjustments are prohibited for the following items: a) To allow a primary or accessory use that is not allowed by the regulations; b) As an exception to any restrictions on uses or development which contain the words "prohibited" or "not allowed"; c) As an exception to a qualifying situation for a regulation, such as zones allowed or items being limited to new development; d) As an exception to a definition or classification; e) As an exception to the procedural steps of a procedure or to change assigned procedures. 18.630.020.F. Modifications to Dimensional and Minimum Density Requirements for Developments That Include or Abut Designated Water Resources Overlay District Riparian Setbacks: The minimum and maximum dimensional requirements and the minimum residential density and mixed-use and non-residential floor area ratio...shall be subject to modification when modification is necessary to assure that environmental impacts are minimized...for unusual situations and allow for alternative ways to meet the purpose of the code, while assuring potential environmental impacts are minimized. Type II procedure. Approval criteria: a) Evidence is provided that the modification(s) are necessary in order to secure approval under any of the following applicable regulations: Federal Endangered Species Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Section 404 or 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and Oregon Removal-Fill Law; b) The proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the area as specified in the Plan; c) If more than one modification is being requested, the cumulative effect of the modifications results in a project that is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone; d) The modification(s) proposed are the minimum required to grant the applicable permit(s) listed in criteria "a". Modifications...do not circumvent or supercede any local, regional, state or federal requirements in regards to natural resources. Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation Existing regulation do not provide for density reduction specifically for habitat benefit areas below the designated minimum. In order to meet the recommendation, the City I:ILRPLN\Denver\Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\GoaI5_Report.doc • • ATTACHMENT 1 would need to incorporate language into its comprehensive plan and development code supporting density reductions for regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat areas. 2 Reduced minimum buildable lot sizes Tualatin Basin Recommendation No specific guidelines have been recommended to implement this practice Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.790.040.A.2 - To retain existing trees over 12" in caliper in the development plan for any land division under Chapter 18.400, lot size may be averaged to allow lots less than the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying zone as long as the average lot area for all lots and private open space is not less than that allowed by the underlying zone. No lot area shall be less than 80% of the minimum lot size allowed in the zone. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation The Tigard Development Code allows for a reduction of lot size below the minimum allowed by the underlying zone as an incentive for tree retention in commercial, industrial or civic zones. 3 Modified Definition of Net Buildable Areas (Acre) Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions could amend their definitions of"net acre" or "buildable area" to exclude Habitat Benefit Areas (HBA) (at the option of the developer). However, this may require an amendment to the Functional Plan (Section 3.07.1010) definition of "net acre" as the definition does not"net out" lands for which the local zoning code provides a density bonus or other mechanism which allows the transfer of the allowable density or use to another area or to development elsewhere on the same site. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.715.020 Definition of net development area deducts sensitive lands. Current Gap: Almost Meets Recommendation The current definition of net developable area excludes sensitive lands. The recommendation would be met if Tualatin Basin program maps were adopted and this provision was applied to habitat benefit areas. II. Engineering & Design Approaches A. Street Design 1 Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas and through Stream Corridors Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should consider allowing reductions in required pavement (and sidewalk) width (and right-of-way dedications) for sites with Habitat Benefit Areas. Allow narrow paved widths through stream corridors. Tigard Community Development Code I:ILRPLNIDenver\Goal 51Program ImplementationlCurrent Practices\Goa15_Report.doc • ATTACHMENT 1 Relevant Code Section: Figures 18.810.4, 18.810.5 & 18.810.6 "Skinny street" roadway widths (20', 24' & 28' pavement widths) are permitted on some local residential streets (citywide) where cross section and review criteria are met. Criteria is based on a traffic flow plan, the number of vehicles per day, adjacent uses and permits certain types of parking. Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation "Skinny street" roadway widths are already permitted citywide for some local residential streets. The City may consider the applicability of "skinny" roadway widths for neighborhood streets adjacent to regionally significant fish and wildlife habitat and through stream corridors. 2 Increased Use of Pervious Materials Tualatin Basin Recommendation Consider amendments to remove barriers to, and encourage the use of, pervious paving materials in parking areas and low traffic private streets. For example, many existing codes require parking and street areas to be hard-paved surfaces with asphalt or concrete. Technical design specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method. Additional steps are needed for sites that are not highly suitable in terms of soil permeabiliO. Concerns about slope stability and impacts to adjacent properties should also be addressed. Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.765.040 B & H B. Access drives shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface. H. Except for single-family and duplex residences, and for temporary uses or fleet storage areas, all areas used for the parking or storage or maneuvering of any vehicle, boat or trailer shall be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces. Off-street parking spaces for single and two-family residences shall be improved with an asphalt or concrete surface. Relevant Code Section: 18.765.050.D Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced with a hard surfaced material,i.e., pavers asphalt, concrete, or similar material. Current Gap: Fails to Meet Recommendation The Tigard Development Code requires access drives and off-street parking areas to be improved with asphalt or concrete surfaces;although, outdoor bicycle parking facilities may be surfaced with pavers. The existing Tigard regulations serve as a barrier to the use of pervious materials on access drives and off-street parking, thus fail to meet the Tualatin Basin recommendations. 3 Maximize Street Tree Coverage Tualatin Basin Recommendation Jurisdictions should document their existing standards to ensure that they are requiring street trees be planted appropriately.Jurisdictions may also wish to document any street tree planting efforts they have engaged in. I:ILRPLNIDenver\Goal 51Program ImplementationTurrent Practices1Goal5_Report.doc • . ATTACHMENT 1 Tigard Community Development Code Relevant Code Section: 18.745.040 Street Trees 1. Landscaping in the front and exterior side yards shall include trees with a minimum caliper of two inches at four feet in height 2. The specific spacing of street trees by size of tree shall be as follows: a. Small or narrow-stature trees (<25' tall, <16'wide): spaced no greater than 20'; b. Medium-sized trees (25-40' tall, 16-35'wide): spaced no greater than 30'; c. Large trees over (>40' tall, >35'wide): spaced no greater than 40'; d. Trees shall not be planted < 20' from an intersection, nor,2' from driveways, fire hydrants or utility poles; j. Where there are overhead power lines, the street tree species selected shall be of a type which will not interfere with the lines; k. Trees shall not be planted within two feet from the face of the curb;and 1. Trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway: Other Relevant Code Sections: 18.790.040 Current Gap: Meets Recommendation Tigard has a Street Tree Planting Program, available to Tigard neighborhoods or homeowners, which provides free street trees for public right-of-way areas along city streets. Financial support for this program is provided through the Tree Mitigation Fund. A Street Tree List was developed to assist Tigard homeowners, businesses, and developers in choosing appropriate trees for proper urban planting sites to reduce the cost of tree maintenance,utility conflicts, sidewalk and roadway repairs, and tree removal requirements. The street tree list identifies trees which are "native" to the area. Tigard Development Code standards which related to street tree planting have been documented (refer to the preceding paragraph) in this report. 4 Use of Stormwater Management Facilities (Modify Drainage Practices) Tualatin Basin Recommendation Technical design specifications will need to be adopted Basin-wide to facilitate the use of this method. CWS and the Basin jurisdictions should consider developing and adopting Basin-wide standards for the construction and maintenance of stormwater management facilities, including working with building officials to identi,6 UBC and Plumbing code issues. Specifications should include project monitoring to help ensure that these facilities are functioning as designed. Existing Regulations Design standards related to the use of stormwater management facilities are contained in the Water Quality Facility Design section of Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards. The Tigard Comprehensive Plan, currently being updated, also includes polices related to storm drainage. Current Gap: Meets Recommendation No barriers to the use of these facilities were identified in the audit of the Tigard Community Development Code. Numerous water quality facilities have been constructed in the City of Tigard. I:ILRPLN1Denver1Goal 51Program Implementation\Current Practices\GoaI5_Report.doc • • Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation GOALS .r.[ i A r i .n-D Qr[ifir0 { ",\I \ B i , I r t k 1 f J ) j — pax 6,1,-• ,•" ). r a-_i . NO ' •9. -y- I. TIGARD " r 21)i Why Protect Habitat Areas? Impacts our quality of life: .``- .? ,a b ■ Health of native fish and wildlife ._, =. t • Supply of clean water r -4. .; • Access to nature ' �:.� ;t," ; • Threat of natural hazards ;+ • Urban growth — need to integrate - %4 Wthe built & natural environment it �o� L tf.lSw Makes Tigard...Tigard! • Contributes to the "sense of place" 1 • • Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas U,I. t t � : �' :L.",'.;% L 4 A �..J , 't. `�" {{ msi j . •; ,'It:, 1,, 'ia ■ :Az... +NM ' 4. -„ I , { 1 r �.ii,,, t .�y , y I ! ti{ >-, HABITAT CROSS-SECTION qe USan fcM�n zone of influence { Human Threats to Habitat? . ,... ' ` }s•s 1(t s ,' 4, e.1 . - t.! g 3 _ � /..,--,!' .lam • -� p R x (t t t -_ r r I,'I ' Insensitive�.Delvelo.pment � �- ,_ ' '5- 3 I � . _ , '-E' - ..'. . �, ;.,.r c 1-- ,gyp N 0 4',0 I, Loss of V;egetat'ion f�-- � i s" a . )' r ,.--.-. Ln Ctontam"r ,ii nate Ru,npoffq c-2c1 LA z i- -A II t e r e d H;y`ci r .y ; 2 • • Attachment 2: PowerPoint Presentation Goal 5 Steps I'i t! , c, �- 'p{ I♦:' a�a � T'x ,, � SSA „•,, �' A 4,-..1`•,- Vei? _',. c ..,.,, " „,...':1:1 0,,Nrem 1 1 I., 0 7}�7•�a'} l "ti a n`r an,_ ''x 4,, 1 � 7�� j I I� STEP o®V® 3 ..s - .s- ' W 1 — E-SSE E -®®yo " : L L) ,Zk „Ai, ,,,,,, iii,ig,,,,....**, . . . . ,.-1,,,pipe-ts-%;-. U NV_ENTORY NZIt:1n tis,'». --.�a ,_.'`'``;' '. -`.``'-: _ :- 144/ —.— E;` .,atin e Tualatin Basin Partners m S 5p ' tura%R� Why form a Basin alliance? r • Fish and wildlife know no political boundaries ri 4 • Tualatin River Watershed covers 13 Cities (nearly 80% of the 4' i watershed is in Washington County) s '; 1 • Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop a Basin- ,-,'•' wide protection program (10 Cities, County,THPRD, CWS&Metro) t'1' OI • Clean Water Services serves as the storm and waste water iiia agency for most urban portions of the Basin • Take the opportunity to integrate the Goal 5 effort with watershed restoration measures identified in the CWS Healthy Streams Plan 3 • 410 Attachment 2: Power Point Presentation • Basin Program Approach Existing Rego latiOns I t Approach , Flexibility in development code 1 by Class , :, L I Habitat-friendly development/Tree ordinance Technical assistance&education 1 I Al' x AW:11' Target restoration! • i I t. ta . 1 ,4. It CD < .' 11) C CD 0 IVIA'hkS C r= r; m, . cl 3. 3 CD :1 -.1.1,. i 0 zi r 1" • Restrictive Liberal > Program Approach , . '. Habitat-friendly Development ,tme ve.„„A Reduce detrimental impacts of X\ 0 444 development on inventoried habitat , !.. , I,. I:. How? 71 't 5,1 • Remove barriers to the 4.;4....li...11 e ' l.\;;IN";: 'ZS% implementation of habitat friendly i-,0 -!m e e b 9 .c•- A :.'"ifspl f f- 04.te;1 = .=■ 4 practices ,,t,,n, „,...._ ,.,e o0 aii1f1 t "`"' ‘: • Develop guidelines to encourage habitat-friendly development practices 4 ____ Attachment 2: PowerPoint Preselltion • Site Example -. , p....f1,6.2:� l _ ' � -� i 'i�\\ y I. - Sf .Y 1W. f t ' u*ik ILIvii ,f.1 d °". • v Tigard Code Review Review existing regulations for consistency with "habitat-friendly development" recommendations .i , ,: for the Tualatin Basin. r' �,1 Summary of Findings : • 11 recommendations were determined to be i substantially met by existing regulations '•"r:ill • Lot Coverage Flexibility • Use of Native Plants ,;w • Parking Ratios • Tree Canopy Preservation `2: • Shared Driveways&Parking • Minimum Lot Size Reduction • Parking Stall Dimensions • Maximize Street Tree Coverage • Parking Lot Landscaping • Use Stormwater Management • Location of Landscaping Facilities 1 Attachment 2: PowerPoint Pre•tation • Tigard Code Review Summary of Findings (cont.) • Amendments to local ordinances would be required for the following 11 proposed methods: a ■'` . • Lot Dimensional Standard oil Map 't 4' i, • Building Height -IV ;5.,'`j • On-site Density Transfer .4,0/- Code 1� Flexibility ' fir,.+,; • Setback Flexibility e* ° $ ; • Reduce sidewalk widths to minimum (ADA) 4 IZI 41;:'`,"s ) • Modify Net Buildable Area '0 /- Remove ti 4 • Permit Healthy Stream Plan Project Outright 0 Barrier • Allow Pervious Paving Materials Language to • Improve Soil Amendment Encourage • Reduce Minimum Density ski 0 , 4,,; • Minimize Paving in Habitat Areas&Stream Crossings o% { Key Questions to Guide Code Revisions • Deduct Habitat Areas from "net development area" ■ Allow adjustments of dimensional standards to Habitat .'1,Pi Areas (outside Vegetated Corridor) 1 III, i, • Allow a waiver to minimum density for Habitat Areas .A; • Allow density transfers for Habitat Areas (outside ,a i` ` ';� Vegetated Corridor) L • Permit outright projects in the CWS Health Streams Plan ■ Promote recommended techniques (e.g. pervious paving, soil amendment, narrow ROW, etc) 2 Attachment 2: PowerPoint Preseetion Next Steps • Coordinate "habitat friendly" code amendments ) , with the City's Comprehensive Plan update process .. .,w • Resolve outstanding policy questions ;;..:; • Define plan of action for amending the Community +'k:: Development Code ##k !J Sys,"`� ,;; • Recommend code amendments for consideration i`°L by the Planning Commission and City Council IN Adopt "habitat friendly" code amendments • ,.' % !; y fi,��: �' f' S �*;, ;rl i Denver Igarta,Associate Planner Email:denver@tigard-or.us 3 APPENDIX A Recommendation Adherence Applicable to Falls Basin. Sensitive Exceeds Meets Almost to HBA Wide Lands/ ryW Tualatin Basin Goal 5 - Habitat Friendly Development Practices Meet ('•o*n) Citywide Approaches/Methods Recommended Standards Current COT Standards(Paraphrased) COT Code Q t Q Q `'` X/x sucw I PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT A Land Division Design 18.715.030.A,2-Limited to units allowed on 25%of preserved 18.715 200& 18.430.020.0& On-Site Density Transfer I Lot Size Allow all den.to be transferred from HBA to remainder of dew.site,provided area.Units/site not exceed 125%of the max.number of units per SL N/A 1 the transferred density isn't more than double the density allowed on gross acre permitted. 18.715.020& (♦ Avenging I Clustering 18.775.110 buildable portion 18.790.040.Average lot sizes to allow lots below the minimum lot 18.790.040A O 2 CW WA size(not less than 80%of the min) (♦� , May approve up to 50%adjustment to any dimensional standard 1e.773.100 SL Type II 2 Reduced Minimum Buildable Lot Sizes Allowing lot dimensional standards(width,depth&frontage)to be (setback height,or lot area)... O reduced up to 40% Lot width and lot depth may be reduced up to 20% 18.790.040.A.3 � CW B Site Design _ _ • Except for lot lines adjacent to property zoned single-family residential allow 18.775.100& min.building setback by base zone to be reduced to any distance between May approve up to 50%adjustment to any dimensional standard 16.360.000.A.1& 1 Increased Flexibility for Setbacks _ SL Type II base zone minimum and zero(also allow for new single family residential(setback height,or lot area;(18.775.100))... 18.620.030.2& ` developments 18.730.030 Smaller single-family lots(also townhouse lots)created by density transfer,Maximum lot coverage for commercial development ranges from SS�� 2 Increased Flexibility for Lot Coverage allowing up to 80%lot coverage provided sq.fl,of addtl.coverage does 80%to 90%;for residential max.coverage is 80% 18.510.2&18.520.2 �y `.t CW WA not exceed total sq.ft.of HBA Should consider increase in max.bldg.ht.est.by the zone of up to 12'.May approve up to SOX adjustment to any dimensional standard ' 3 increased Flexibility for Building Heights Except in areas who 40fl,of property zoned single-family residential (setback height,or lot area)...R1.4.5=3081 R7&12=35ft/ 18.775.100 O A x CW Type II R25=45WR40=60ft/MU=2 foors/Ind 45 ft. C Parking Design For each 2%canopy preserved(uses=C/I/Civic),1%reduction in 18.790.040A4& 1 Reduced Parking Ratios Should consider reducing ratios for non-residential by up to 10% req'd parking(up to 20%) 18.765.070.E O (• x CW WA Owners of 2 or more uses,structures or parcels of land may 18360.080.8 8 2 Shared Driveways and Parking Mss Encourage use of shared and on-street parking credits as means to reduce agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces... 18.705.030 C& r27 X BUCw amount of on-site parking (10,765.030.C).Owners may agree to utilize same access and 18.765.0300 egress(18.705.030.C) Consider reduction of up to 15%of req.landscaping and/or parking l0 18.790.040A5& Flexibility in Parldng Lot Landscaping I For each 2%canopy preserved(uses=C/I/Civic),1%reduction in 3 Additional Parking Lot Landscaping landscaping sq.ft.provided sq.ft.doesn't exceed HBA.Consider flexibili req'd landscaping(up to 20%) 18.745.2(fable)& O " CW WA in parking lot landscaping standards to preserve mature trees, 18.765.040,J Consider allowing 40% of req. parking as compact 90° mean Current 900 parking stalls are width 7'8"and length of 18'5". x CW WA 4 Smaller Car Spaces and Steil Dimensions vddtMTB"end length�l5'in HBA Stall width dimensions may be distributed as follows:50% 18.165.040.N ti7 `�` standard,50%compact spaces. 78.765.040.8, • 5 Increased Use of Pervious Material' Remove barriers to and encourage the use of pervious paving materials in Access drives and off-street parking spaces shall be improved 18.765.040.H, to X CW N/A parking areas and low traffic private streets with an asphalt or concrete surface. 18.765.050.D& 18.810.030 _ D Landscaping/Hardecape Design For HBA,consider allowing reduction of up to 15%of req.landseapin• 15.790.040A5 Locating Landscaping Adjacent to Habitat For each 2%canopy preserved(uses-Gil/Civic),1%reduction in 1 Areas and/or parking lot landscaping sq.ft., provided that the sq.ft. doesn' req'd landscaping(up to 20%) 18.745,2(Table)& O (•� CW exceed size of HBA 18.745.030.E/050/060 Add language to encourage use of native plants/preservation of existin•The use of native plant materials is encouraged to reduce CW N/A 2 increased Use of Native Plants trees.Consider requiring%mitigation to be native spades. irrigation and maintenance demands 18.745.OBO.C.d ` X 3 Improved Soil Amendment' No use of soil amendments to improve soil permeability within No apparent barriers identified. 18.745 1 X N/A landscaped areas Allow exception in pedestrian connectivity standards that allow reductlo Table 18.810.1 shows the width required for sidewalks based on 4 Reduction of non-ADA Sidewalks Within a of in width of mg.sidewalks and pedestrian access way to minimum to street classification ranging from 5'to 10'and should state that 18.810.070& () x CW WA Site 18.810.1(Table) ` comply cal ADA requirements the minimum is 5'for HBAs 5 increased Use of Habitat-Friendly Fencing N/A N/A `A 18.790.040& Preservation of Existing Trees and Document existing standards to ensure that they are requiring street tree Code section 18.790.040 outlines numerous incentives for tree 18.745.010.A.4& 6 Maximize Forest Canopy to be planted appropriately retention 18.745.030.E& `' X CW N/A 18.745.040.A& _ 18.790.030.A& E Lighting Design 1 Lad Redirected Outdoor Lighting(Reducing I N/A I I 18.520.060.A.2.b.1 N/A I` I I CW I F Density Reduction for Regionally Signmcant Habitat Allow a weaver of minimum density requirements...based on the amount of Variance Chapter 18.370.020 provides for adjustments to min. 18.370.020 C2& 1 Reduce Minimum Density area protected.Notify by April each yr. density.(Under 18.790.040 A-Density bonus of 1%for each 2% 18.790.040,A.1& 4 ` Cw N/A • canopy preserved) 18.715.020 For retention of tree canopy(uses=C/I/Civic),lot size may be p 2 Reduce Minimum Buildable Lot Sizes No specific guideline recommended averaged to allow lots less than min.lot size 18.790.040.A.2 tit ` CW 2 Modified Definition of Net Buildable Areas & O as Amend definition of"net acre or"buildable area"to exclude HBA Definition of net development area takes out sensitive lands 18.715.020 at WA (Acre) 18.630.020 E/F Ii ENGINEERING & DESIGN A Street Design 18,810.030.E.1 8 Must be indicated on an approved street plan to make smaller Approved 1 Minimize Paving Consider allowing reductions in req.pavement(&sidewalk)width(&right-of rightso roadway and streets.Skinny Street roady widths figures 18.810.4.B, O x Street way dedications)for NBA 18.8104-6. 18,810.5.8& ` Pan 18.810.6.B . Remove bafflers to,and encourage the use of pervious paving materials in Access drives and off-street parking spaces shall be improved 18.785.040.8& 2 Use Pervious Paving Materials• parking areas and low traffic private streets with an asphalt or concrete surface. 18.783.040.8 8 4 X CW 18.765.050.D , 3 Maximize Street Tree Coverage Document existing standards to ensure that they are requiring street trees Wrote section on street trees and section on incentives for tree 18.745.040 8 X CW N/A to be planted retention 18.790.040 , Should address site suitability criteria and addtl.steps for sites that are not s� 4 Stomrwater Management Facilities/Modify highly suitable (low soil permeability); Develop & adopt basin-wide CWS already has existing standardards and technical CWS&18.810.100 tv X Drainage Practices standards for construction and maintenance of stomnvater management specifications for these methods. facilities B Stream Crossing and Street Connectivity Standards _ A • llow narrow paved widths lhnr stream corridors using habitat sensitive • Minimize Number of Stream Crossings I bridge and culvert designs; permit culvert replacement and assoc.CWS already has existing standardards and technical 1 enhancement work outright and not require addtl.land use or vegetative CWS&TSP N/A 3` x Place Crossings Perpendicular corridor mitigation; ensure that block length and connectivity standards specifications for these methods. (• include flexibility to minimize stream crossings Allow Narrow Street Right-of-Ways 18.810.4,8, - s• ' 2 Through Sham Corridors Consider allowing narrow street ROW through stream conidors Skinny Street roadway widths figures 18.8104-6. 18.810.5.B& () `] X 1881088 , Use Habitat Sensitive Bridge and Culvert Jurisdictions should consider amending their codes to permit culvert Tigard does not permit culvert replacement and enhancement 3 Designs* replacement and associated enhancement work outright and not require work outright;however,certain work is exempt when performed 18.775.020 U ` X e additional land use or vegetative corridor mitigation review. under the direction of the City. C Stemmata Management Facility Design Should address site suitability criteria and addtl.steps for sites that are not A� 1 Stemmata'.Management Facilities/Modify highly suitable (low soil permeability); Develop & adopt basin-wide CWS already has existing standardards and technical CWS&18,810.100 'a7 I X Drainage Practices standards for construction and maintenance of stonrxwater management specifications for these methods,No apparent barriers identified, facilities Use of Underground Detention and/or Methods suggested as additions to Paper#1-Need input from TBSC and 2 Treatment* engineering stag No apparent barriers identified N/A N/A X III BUILDING DESIGN 1 Encourage Green(Eco)Roofs* Consider developing and adopting basin-wide standards for the construction apparent barriers identified WA" N/A X and maintenance of green roofs Disconnect Downspouts/Rain Basin-wide specifications addressing site suitability criteria and additional • 2 * steps needed for sites that are not highly suitable in terms of soil No apparent barriers identified N/A" N/A X BarreUClstem System* permeability _ • */ED -Technical design specifications are required before practices can be adopted and implemented. **-These are not mentioned specifically within the Tigard Community Development Code but are allowed under 18.360.010.8.2; to preserve and enhance the natural beauties of the land and of the man-made environment,and enjoyment thereof;also(18,360.010.C.2&3:2)'To encourage the innovative use of materials,methods,and techniques and flexibility in building placement.." X-Could be implemented Basinwide,but the primary recommendation is within/adjacent to HBA. 0-0 A121 fTGilT IESIElY1IEIF0T GADZIEGa r/09MCA) Rrsld•rto. Urlp Condos S I m Trop ^ : _�• "_ Qr��• y HBA Slte(s)with inventoried habitat i.• ::•%.t� �� r t �' 11.111 Punt' , area(s) - = ;r• 'It.• ,� 4i...Cu 0.0 --- - ------ L STREAM CORRIDOR - � ADJACENT RIPARIAN HA R IT AT f UPLAND eaAtBTAT